Cited by 57Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Coronary Artery Calcium Versus Pooled Cohort Equations Score for Primary Prevention Guidance

Open access
Muhlestein, Joseph B., Knowlton, Kirk U., Le, Viet T., Lappe, Donald L., May, Heidi T., Min, David B., Johnson, Kevin M., Cripps, Shanelle T. +4 more·2022·JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

Abstract

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the feasibility of performing an extensive randomized outcomes trial comparing a coronary artery calcium (CAC)- versus a pooled cohort equations (PCE) risk score-based strategy for initiating statin therapy for primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention. BACKGROUND Statin therapy is standard for the primary prevention of ASCVD in subjects at increased risk. National guidelines recommend using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association PCE risk score to guide a statin recommendation. Whether guidance by a CAC score is equivalent or superior is unknown. METHODS CorCal (Effectiveness of a Proactive Cardiovascular Primary Prevention Strategy, With or Without the Use of Coronary Calcium Screening, in Preventing Future Major Adverse Cardiac Events) was a randomized trial consenting 601 patients without known ASCVD, diabetes, or prior statin therapy recruited from primary care clinics and randomized to CAC- (n = 302) or PCE guidance (n = 299) of statin initiation for primary prevention. Enrolled subjects and their physicians made final treatment decisions. Primary outcomes compared the proportion of statin recommendations received and subject adherence over 1 year between CAC- and PCE-arm subjects. Modeled medical costs, adverse effects, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) were additional measures of interest. RESULTS Subjects were well matched, and 540 (89.9%) completed entry testing and received a protocol-based recommendation. A statin was recommended in 101 (35.9%) CAC- and 124 (47.9%) PCE-arm subjects (P = 0.005). Compared to PCE-based recommendations, CAC-arm subjects were reclassified from statin to no statin in 36.0% and from no statin to statin in 5.6% of cases, resulting in a total reclassification of 20.6%. Physicians accepted the study-dictated recommendation to start a statin in 88.1% of CAC- vs 75.0% of PCE-arm subjects (P = 0.01). Patient-reported adherence to this recommendation at 3 months was 62.2% vs 42.2%, respectively (P = 0.009). At 1 year, statin adherence remained superior, LDL-C levels were lower, estimated costs were similar or reduced in CAC subjects, and few events occurred. CONCLUSIONS CAC guidance may be a more efficient, personalized, cost-effective, and motivating approach to statin initiation and maintenance in primary prevention. This feasibility phase of CorCal should be regarded as hypothesis-generating with respect to cardiovascular outcomes, which is being addressed in a large, longer-term outcomes trial. (Effectiveness of a Proactive Cardiovascular Primary Prevention Strategy, With or Without the Use of Coronary Calcium Screening, in Preventing Future Major Adverse Cardiac Events [CorCal]; NCT03439267).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcmg.2021.11.006

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Among individuals with diabetes, glycemic assessments should be performed using HbA1c as a measure of glycemic control over the preceding 2 to 3 months, which indicates risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications.

    “Among individuals with diabetes, glycemic assessments should be performed using HbA1c as a measure of glycemic control over the preceding 2 to 3 months, which indicates risk for microvascular and macrovascular complications.52”

    From 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Follow-up Evaluations passage lists diabetes mellitus as an exclusion criterion, and the Baseline Characteristics passage describes lipid and coronary-calcium testing rather than glycemic assessment (page numbers unavailable). Searches for HbA1c, glycemic control, and diabetes assessment found no passage addressing the claimed 2–3-month measure or its relationship to microvascular and macrovascular complications. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Semaglutide improved steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis versus placebo in persons with MASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis.

    “The ESSENCE (Research Study on Whether Semaglutide Works in People With Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis) trial, testing semaglutide in persons with MASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis, demonstrated improvement in steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis in the intervention versus placebo arm.11,52”

    From 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Follow-Up Evaluations and Clinical Outcomes sections discuss coronary calcium–guided statin recommendations and cardiovascular events, not the ESSENCE trial. Searches for semaglutide, steatohepatitis, MASH, and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis found no passage addressing the claimed comparison with placebo. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In one study, 60% of women with APOs attended a primary care visit within 12 months of delivery.

    “in 1 study, 60% of women with APOs attended a primary care visit within 12 months of delivery”

    From 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome (2026) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Study Protocol describes a cardiovascular-prevention trial of adults aged 50–85, and Follow-up Evaluations describes statin-related follow-up one year after enrollment. Searches for adverse pregnancy outcomes, postpartum visits, and delivery found no passage reporting the claimed 60% primary-care visit rate. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [5]5. DeFilippis AP, Young R, McEvoy JW, et al. Risk score overestimation: the impact of individual cardiovascular risk factors and preventive thera- pies on the performance of the American Heart Association-American College of Cardiology- Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score in a modern multi-ethnic cohort. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:598-608.
  2. [15]15. Agarwal S, Cox AJ, Herrington DM, et al. Cor- onary calcium score predicts cardiovascular mor- tality in diabetes: Diabetes Heart Study. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:972-977.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Muhlestein, J. B., Knowlton, K. U., Le, V. T., Lappe, D. L., May, H. T., Min, D. B., Johnson, K. M., Cripps, S. T., Schwab, L. H., Braun, S. B., Bair, T. L., & Anderson, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Intermountain Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Muhlestein, Joseph B.
Venue
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-05
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
843-855
ISSN
  • 1876-7591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-878X
OpenAlex
W4200504427
Cited by
57
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9
FWCI
6.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JACC. Cardiovascular imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Intermountain Research and Medical Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Cardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
coronary artery calcium, Pooled Cohort Equations, risk score, statin initiation, primary prevention, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular risk stratification, statin adherence, LDL cholesterol, physician acceptance of recommendations, randomized trial feasibility, cost analysis, adverse effects, primary health centers, major adverse cardiac events
MeSH terms
Calcium, Coronary Artery Disease, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Predictive Value of Tests, Primary Prevention, Risk Factors, United States, Risk Assessment, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Atherosclerosis, Vascular Calcification

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review